The principle of transparency or web 2.0 against corruption
The pattern between the level of transparency and the level of corruption in any single country has long been known. Perhaps if we remove the transparency of the state. apparatus of countries such as Sweden, Canada, Denmark, or Norway, then sooner or later, they, too, will be mired in corruption. You can establish any administrative and criminal responsibility (even the death penalty in China), but if there is no due transparency, then corruption cannot be defeated - sometimes scapegoats will represent the crowd (perhaps many of them are innocent or only a small part of them are responsible) , but we simply will not know about the majority of offenses without transparency.
Classically, transparency was ensured through the accountability of some representatives of the bureaucracy to other representatives of the bureaucracy, and this reporting was issued to ordinary citizens only at the request. This system is not effective , because: Firstly, nothing prevents you from giving citizens incorrect data, or unreasonably refuse and delay receiving these data through the court, giving the official time to maneuver and conceal possible offenses on his part. Secondly, corrupt officials tend to protect their environment by ousting law-abiding and exemplary citizens from the state. structures, with the result that such reporting does not give anything, especially at the lowest levels.
')
With the introduction of web technologies and the computerization of almost all structures and departments of the state apparatus, it became possible to offer a new transparency system to our state - direct reporting to citizens via the Internet. The idea is to undertake a revolution from above, to oblige all government agencies to provide reporting (without a request!) And through a single system.
Such a system should operate in three aspects: in law , in legal proceedings , and, of course, in all types of bureaucratic structures .
Such measures will help to ensure publicity, but only partially, a discussion is also needed - public opinion . I personally believe that the state on such a portal is not obliged to provide mechanisms for discussing specific data, but should provide a good API for creating third-party, private discussion sites. This, firstly, will ease the burden on the main state portal, secondly, it will prevent censorship, thirdly, it will organize communities of citizens based on common interests in specific elements of the state apparatus, for example, on a territorial basis.
Here we already have a system by which citizens themselves can see the various offenses on the part of officials (the discrepancy between reality and reports mainly), and also they can discuss and condemn them. It remains to complete the cycle.
Once it became clear that a separate official committed the wrongful action, the most logical thing is to submit an application to the prosecutor's office, but very often such cases just jam in this phase. ... We have, in principle, a good judicial mechanism, only he needs lubrication. For this, I think it is necessary to create a separate state body that will act like a certain collective ombudsman with a structure similar to a public chamber, but with a large staff.
It should consist mainly of human rights defenders, members of representative parties, people with highly developed moral principles, and of course, competent lawyers. This body should have its own website, on which anyone can openly submit to this organization a statement and an evidentiary part, against any official. The application must be published in an open form for all visitors to the site (the author may not disclose his name to the public). Further, this body must itself submit an application to the prosecutor's office and periodically on the same page as the application write about the progress of the case. No more authority, except reporting to the President in cases when someone very high-ranking tries to prevent justice. Thus, the public, we, will be able to follow the course of the most egregious cases and not let them hush up.
What can we do? I wrote above that for all this a revolution from above is necessary, since in order to accomplish a revolution from below, this idea needs to be spread among a significant part of the population, and it can take years, and then even more years, to realize it by putting pressure on the authorities. But our President, Dmitry Anatolyevich, seems to be very progressive in this regard, and his thoughts seem to me quite sensible. We could write and send him a collective appeal with a request to influence from above, in order to create a similar system within the framework of the state project. services, because right now steps are being taken to create uniform standards in the computer systems of the state apparatus, why not use them to add a little transparency to our system.
UPD : so summing up, I can say that the majority of commentators and those who voted for the article are positive about the idea, although for many it causes pessimistic notes. In particular, many commentators do not believe that it will be implemented, or even that it will be answered. Anyway, I have already prepared a letter and as soon as the winter holidays pass, I will immediately send it. Also, I found quite interesting remarks (on the case) of users of agorlov 'a and getthe .
Classically, transparency was ensured through the accountability of some representatives of the bureaucracy to other representatives of the bureaucracy, and this reporting was issued to ordinary citizens only at the request. This system is not effective , because: Firstly, nothing prevents you from giving citizens incorrect data, or unreasonably refuse and delay receiving these data through the court, giving the official time to maneuver and conceal possible offenses on his part. Secondly, corrupt officials tend to protect their environment by ousting law-abiding and exemplary citizens from the state. structures, with the result that such reporting does not give anything, especially at the lowest levels.
')
With the introduction of web technologies and the computerization of almost all structures and departments of the state apparatus, it became possible to offer a new transparency system to our state - direct reporting to citizens via the Internet. The idea is to undertake a revolution from above, to oblige all government agencies to provide reporting (without a request!) And through a single system.
Such a system should operate in three aspects: in law , in legal proceedings , and, of course, in all types of bureaucratic structures .
- In the legislation, through a single portal, a citizen, if desired, should have access to the entire current legislative base and draft laws, ranging from the Constitution and federal laws to local acts of municipalities. In addition, the site should have a doctrinal interpretation of the basic laws, civil obligations and freedoms. This interpretation should be aimed at people without legal education, preferably for the younger generation, because in this way we can overcome legal nihilism and spread knowledge of our basic rights and obligations among our citizens.
- In legal proceedings - the process must be open always, when it does not contradict the interests of the investigation. At the same or closely connected portal, materials of any process should be provided to citizens in electronic form, not only jurisprudence (the decision of the judges on already completed cases), but also the evidence part (when possible) on all cases not only completed. In addition, legal-procedural information should be clearly provided with a clearly defined timeline and giving information about the courts in the area of interest to the person, information about his particular case and similar important information.
- At the level of the state apparatus, all decisions and actions of officials must be provided without a request. According to the law, they must be public: they gave permission for construction, provided reports on the website, approved the budget - provided reports, spent funds from the budget - provided reports. It is also necessary to give additional legal support to such a portal, for example, an unpublished act on it is not valid . You can, for example, force officials to transmit to each other certain acts only through this portal. In addition, this site should have a clearly traced organigram (a scheme in which the names and hierarchical relations of subordination between officials in a particular administration or zone are indicated), and it is also necessary to publish a tax declaration of all officials and their close relatives.
Such measures will help to ensure publicity, but only partially, a discussion is also needed - public opinion . I personally believe that the state on such a portal is not obliged to provide mechanisms for discussing specific data, but should provide a good API for creating third-party, private discussion sites. This, firstly, will ease the burden on the main state portal, secondly, it will prevent censorship, thirdly, it will organize communities of citizens based on common interests in specific elements of the state apparatus, for example, on a territorial basis.
Here we already have a system by which citizens themselves can see the various offenses on the part of officials (the discrepancy between reality and reports mainly), and also they can discuss and condemn them. It remains to complete the cycle.
Once it became clear that a separate official committed the wrongful action, the most logical thing is to submit an application to the prosecutor's office, but very often such cases just jam in this phase. ... We have, in principle, a good judicial mechanism, only he needs lubrication. For this, I think it is necessary to create a separate state body that will act like a certain collective ombudsman with a structure similar to a public chamber, but with a large staff.
It should consist mainly of human rights defenders, members of representative parties, people with highly developed moral principles, and of course, competent lawyers. This body should have its own website, on which anyone can openly submit to this organization a statement and an evidentiary part, against any official. The application must be published in an open form for all visitors to the site (the author may not disclose his name to the public). Further, this body must itself submit an application to the prosecutor's office and periodically on the same page as the application write about the progress of the case. No more authority, except reporting to the President in cases when someone very high-ranking tries to prevent justice. Thus, the public, we, will be able to follow the course of the most egregious cases and not let them hush up.
What can we do? I wrote above that for all this a revolution from above is necessary, since in order to accomplish a revolution from below, this idea needs to be spread among a significant part of the population, and it can take years, and then even more years, to realize it by putting pressure on the authorities. But our President, Dmitry Anatolyevich, seems to be very progressive in this regard, and his thoughts seem to me quite sensible. We could write and send him a collective appeal with a request to influence from above, in order to create a similar system within the framework of the state project. services, because right now steps are being taken to create uniform standards in the computer systems of the state apparatus, why not use them to add a little transparency to our system.
UPD : so summing up, I can say that the majority of commentators and those who voted for the article are positive about the idea, although for many it causes pessimistic notes. In particular, many commentators do not believe that it will be implemented, or even that it will be answered. Anyway, I have already prepared a letter and as soon as the winter holidays pass, I will immediately send it. Also, I found quite interesting remarks (on the case) of users of agorlov 'a and getthe .
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/79581/
All Articles